Miller makes the remarkable argument that conventional or organic foods are nutritionally inferior and less safe than genetically engineered crops. Of course he cites no research or evidence to support these statements--because there is none. He is simply repeating public relations fluff from the biotech industry. In fact there is a growing body of evidence indicating that the opposite is true.

To use Miller's example of genetically engineered crops embedded with the Bt pesticide, earlier this summer Cornell researchers found that pollen from engineered Bt corn was toxic to the Monarch butterfly. The study raises questions about what other non-target pests might be threatened by genetically engineered materials once they are released into the environment. Researchers from the University of Arizona reported last week that pest resistance to Bt cotton will occur much more quickly than expected, and that the strategy of building refuges around genetically engineered cropland might not work in preventing pest resistance. Another study published in the Journal of Medicinal Food found that genetically engineered soybeans may contain smaller concentrations of phytoestrogen compounds (thought to protect against heart disease and some forms of cancer) than conventional soybeans.

These recent examples, along with two recent analyses indicating that engineered crops do not increase yields, call into question the lax regulatory requirements these products must undergo before entering the market. Surprisingly even the most basic research into possible environmental and human health risks (including the studies described above) are not required to be done before genetically engineered crops are grown and enter the marketplace.

Europe's concern about genetically engineered crops is grounded in the inability of the biotech industry to prove the crops are safe and the growing body of evidence that engineered crops may have defects. While the U.S. brags about the strength of its regulatory agencies, the Food and Drug Administration essentially abdicated any responsibility for genetically engineered crops in 1992, when it ruled that engineered crops are "substantially equivalent" to conventional crops. That remarkable ruling means that no safety testing or labeling is required when new engineered crops enter the market.

Companies throughout Europe have pledged to take genetically engineered crops out of their products. Gerber and Heinz have had the courage to make the same pledge in the U.S. These companies should be applauded for taking precautionary action until this new technology undergoes further testing. U.S. regulatory agencies should act with as much courage.